Fairly meaningless, but here are Furphey and Walker’s Per 36 comparisons

12 comments

  1. The idea of Jarace is better, but the actual production of Furphy fits our team’s future plans more

  2. Jerace feels five years older than Furphy. Not sure if I should be harder on Furphy or easier on Jerace.

  4. The rebounding numbers don’t seem to match their physiques. Furphy will improve as he gets older and stronger. But why is he out rebounding Jarace already?

  5. Also more than fairly meaningless: I asked ChatGPT “based on this chart, which player is more valuable to winning basketball”…

    Answer:

    Short answer: **Furphy is more meaningful to winning** based on what you’ve shown—*especially* if we’re talking about team efficiency, lineup fit, and scalable impact rather than raw usage.

    Here’s why, broken down in a “winning basketball” lens rather than box-score bias.

    —

    ## 1. Efficiency > Volume (this matters most)

    Furphy absolutely crushes Walker in the efficiency metrics:

    * **FG%:** 53% vs 37%
    * **eFG%:** **62% vs 46%** (this is massive)
    * **3PT%:** essentially equal (37% vs 36%)

    That eFG gap alone tells you Furphy converts possessions into points far more reliably. Over the course of a game—or season—that’s *real win equity*.

    Walker scores more **because he shoots more**, not because he’s better at scoring.

    —

    ## 2. Turnovers quietly swing games

    * **Turnovers:** 1.3 (Furphy) vs **2.4 (Walker)**

    That’s nearly **double** for Walker.

    Lower-usage players who protect the ball *increase the ceiling* of high-usage teammates. Furphy is helping possessions end in shots, not giveaways.

    —

    ## 3. Rebounding + steals = possession margin

    * **Rebounds:** 8.4 vs 6.7
    * **Steals:** 1.1 vs 1.0

    Extra possessions win games. Furphy adds them on both ends without needing the ball.

    —

    ## 4. Role value vs usage value

    Walker:

    * Higher points and assists
    * Higher usage
    * Lower efficiency
    * Higher turnovers

    Furphy:

    * Elite efficiency
    * Strong rebounding for his position
    * Low mistakes
    * Doesn’t hijack possessions

    That’s the classic **“good stats on usage vs winning impact”** divide.

    Walker may *look* more important on offense, but Furphy is the guy who:

    * Fits with stars
    * Keeps spacing honest
    * Doesn’t break offensive flow
    * Makes lineups better even when he’s not scoring

    —

    ## 5. Age difference is negligible

    21 vs 22 is a wash. No edge there.

    —

    ## Final verdict

    If I’m:

    * Building a **winning lineup**
    * Playing meaningful games
    * Evaluating NBA or high-level college impact

    👉 **I take Furphy.**

    Walker might be more noticeable, but **Furphy is more valuable**—the kind of player coaches trust late in games and analytics love.

  6. If Walker had the same contract as Furphy, I’d want to keep both. But he doesn’t, so I don’t.

  9. I think they could play together, especially off the bench next season when everyone’s healthy…. errr if everyone’s healthy.

  12. His name is literally on the back of his jersey. Why are we having so much trouble spelling FURPHY?

Leave a Reply